Applicant as of African Union Cameroon was Nigeria, though the day after 13 June 2011, when the Legal Counsel of the Commission confirmed to the Court that the Republic of not party to the Protocol and that the Federal Republic of party to the Protocol, had not made the Declaration as provided in Article 34 (6) of the Protocol. ae Indeed, the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction ought to be devoted, on its own, a formal decision of the Court only in case of a “dispute” within the meaning of Article 3 (2) of the Protocol, in other words when an objection based on jurisdiction is raised pursuant to Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. In all cases of a “manifest” lack of jurisdiction of the Court, found after a judicial handling of the application by a small team of judges (judge-rapporteur or a committee of two or three judges) or which may, de lege ferenda, be arrived at after a strictly administrative handling of the Application by the Registry, a simple letter addressed by the latter to the Applicant should suffice. That would enable the Court to spare its resources and, considering that it does not sit on a full-time basis, to expedite action on such applications. 8. Furthermore, the adoption by the Court, as in the instant case, of a decision on the lack of jurisdiction whereas the States concerned have not been served with copies of the Application nor have they been informed of its filing is challengeable in principle; all the more so in the instant case as the Application was mentioned on the Court’s website upon receipt. The failure to transmit the Application to the States concerned further deprived Nigeria (Cameroon not being party to the Protocol) of the possibility of accepting the jurisdiction of the Court by way of a forum prorogatum (on this matter, see my separate opinion above). 9. In this respect, any application filed against a State party to the Protocol which has not yet made the optional declaration, should be transmitted, for information purposes, to that State to enable it to accept the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the matter’. Since the current practice of the Registry is to register on the general list all cases submitted to the Court, logically all applications relating to those cases should systematically be communicated to the States concemed and published on the website of the Court. The registration of a case on the general list of a court means that the latter is validly “seized” and that the case is pending before the said jurisdiction (on this matter, see paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of my above-mentioned separate opinion). 1 In that scenario, the Registry would inform the Applicant that (1) since the State against which the application was filed did not make the optional declaration, the Court cannot entertain his application; (2) the application has been forwarded to this State, for information purposes; (3) the Court may examine the application if the State concerned decides to accept the Court’s jurisdiction.